Subject: RE: [xsl] Abbreviated form of XSLT? From: "Passin, Tom" <tpassin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 17:09:53 -0400 |
[Eric van der Vlist] > > You can say the same for the Relax NG compact syntax (or for > WikiML), but in all the cases, if the compact and XML > syntaxes are equivalent, the argument is rather pointless > since your always only a simple translation away from the other! > > And you can use the compact syntax with tools which do not > support it as long as you pass it through a pre-processor. > Yes, and I actually have no objection to a non-xml syntax that is easy for people to read and write. I just want to make sure it can really support the things I do. Perhaps it was too strong to say that referring to the stylesheet itself would be hard to work out. > I think that we are paying too much attention to the syntax. > That's probably normal since the syntax is what we actually > see but what's important is just below and I see no problem > to choose the syntax that we prefer as long as it's > equivalent to the XML one and as long as we have converters. > It would be interesting to have a reverse converter - take someone's existing xml format and convert to compact syntax in the hopes of making it easier to read and understand. However, I am against syntaxes that need lots of parentheses or braces because those become hard to read and debug. I sometimes use an indented format (a la Python) for my own hand-authored to-become-xml documents and that works beautifully. I have a little Python parser that throws Sax events. It cannot handle everything, but it does enough to be useful. Cheers, Tom P XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Abbreviated form of XSLT?, David Carlisle | Thread | RE: [xsl] Abbreviated form of XSLT?, McNally, David |
Re: [xsl] pesky & and fop, J.Pietschmann | Date | RE: [xsl] XSLT Processor - root nod, Lopez, William |
Month |